Ministry of Justice

On 21 September, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that 500 prison-based staff would be trained and equipped to use Taser devices as part of a wider effort to enhance safety across the prison estate. We currently have 25 specially trained officers who work within the Operational Response and Resilience Teams. At present, no frontline officers are trained in the use of Tasers.

Delivering this capability is a significant undertaking: work to train and equip additional officers is in progress.

The Government announced on 22 October 2025 that it will repeal the presumption of parental involvement when Parliamentary time allows.

Prior to this announcement, a Parliamentary write-round was undertaken which included consideration by the Attorney General’s Office.

The repeal will be taken forward once an appropriate legislative vehicle is identified. This remains a Ministerial priority, and we will announce further plans due course.

Rules and restrictions on what can be said during ongoing court proceedings are vital to ensure that trials are fair and justice is delivered. The Government recognises that social media is putting these long-established rules under strain, especially in cases where partial and inaccurate information appears online. The Law Commission is undertaking a review of contempt law which considers whether existing legal frameworks allow us to respond effectively to publications and communications that seriously impede or prejudice the course of justice.

At the Government’s request, the Commission expedited parts of the review relating to our ability to counter misinformation. That report was published in November covering liability and contempt and the role of the Attorney General in contempt proceedings.

We are carefully considering the recommendations and will issue a formal response once both reports have been published.

The Bill will apply to all public authorities, including the intelligence services. At Second Reading of the Bill, the Prime Minister was clear that the duty of candour would need to apply in a particular way to the intelligence services to get the right balance. We are clear that nothing should undermine our national security.

We are continuing to work closely with families, stakeholders and the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee to bring forward amendments that achieve this balance. We will update the House in due course.

The information requested is not held within the Ministry of Justice.

We recognise that illicit drug use in prisons is too high, and are committed to tackling this to improve safety, support rehabilitation and reduce reoffending. We are investing over £40 million in physical security measures this financial year and have funded Incentivised Substance Free Living Units in 85 prisons. We work closely with health partners to identify prisoners with a drug dependency and support them into treatment and recovery and are rolling out naloxone in prisons – life saving medication which can reverse the effects of an opiate overdose.

We are currently unable to publish performance data on drug level use in prisons because due to reduced testing levels, reduced number of prisons with sufficient testing and the need to update the testing panel, the data is currently not sufficient to robustly estimate the percentage positive. Prisons across the estate strive to conduct target levels of rMDT, but in recent years Governors have had to make difficult decisions about how to balance the demands of testing with wider capacity pressures. However, rMDT is only one element of a wider testing regime, which includes suspicion-based testing for those suspected of illicit use, and compact-based testing on Incentivised Substance Free Living Units and Drug Recovery Wings. Our testing regime enables us to monitor a wide range of substances and assess the prevalence of different types of drugs. We keep this under regular review to ensure we identify emerging trends to keep both prisoners and staff safe. Our new drug testing contract supports this by giving us greater flexibility to respond to emerging drug threats, including synthetic drugs.

This Government is committed to working closely with the Scottish Government to strengthen protections for victims of cross-border grooming gangs.

We have accepted all 12 recommendations of Baroness Casey’s report, ensuring a comprehensive, victim focused response to tackling group-based child sexual exploitation.

We are putting victims first with a record £550 million investment in specialist support services over the next three years, alongside reforms to ensure our justice system delivers swift, fair justice.

We will soon be consulting on a new Victims’ Code which, once launched, will help to ensure victims know their rights.

We are committed to delivering crucial new prison places in Buckinghamshire and are working constructively with Buckinghamshire Council to agree how to manage construction traffic.

We have committed to making improvements to a key junction and funding will be provided to improve local bus services.

The Government is committed to transparency in our courts and tribunals, and I know the judiciary are too.

Last month we announced that we are expanding free access to sentencing remarks to all victims whose case is sentenced in the Crown Court.

This is a landmark moment for transparency and open justice, and a meaningful improvement for victims across the country.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the untried remand population in custody in the Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) publication. This data can be found in Population Table 1_Q_2 of OMSQ: Offender management statistics quarterly: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK.

Safety in prisons is a key priority. We are working hard to make prisons as safe as possible for those who live and work in them. Safe prisons are vital to enable prisoners to engage in rehabilitative activities that reduce re-offending. Staff are trained to identify where a prisoner may be at risk, and to be able to take appropriate action in response.

A number of reception prisons have specific units for people convicted of sexual offences. In addition to this, a number of other prisons have particular arrangements for vulnerable prisoners – a category which includes, but is not limited to, people convicted of sex offences.

Releases in error are never acceptable, and we are bearing down on those errors that do occur. Following the release in error of Hadush Kebatu from HMP Chelmsford, we took immediate steps to make the processes that take place when a prisoner is released more robust. This includes implementing a clear checklist for governors to determine that every step has been followed before any release takes place.

On 11 November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced this Government’s five-point action plan to address the causes of releases in error. This includes an urgent query process with a dedicated unit and court experts to allow prisons to quickly escalate warrant-related queries and reduce release errors, a multi-million pound investment to deploy digital tools and upgrade outdated paper-based processes, and an independent review into the recent errors and systemic issues, with recommendations to prevent further inaccuracies.

In accordance with the Office of National Statistics Census definitions (also reflected within the more detailed prisoner ethnicity data published as part of our Offender Management Statistics “Prison Population” annual tables), the 'Irish Traveller or Gypsy' and 'Roma' groups are counted as part of the "White" ethnicity group.

The ethnicity grouping presented in the table is consistent with that published quarterly for the prison population in Offender Management Statistics, for comparability.

The number of staff and self-reported Welsh language speakers in each Welsh prison can be found in the table below:

Headcount of staff in post on 30 September 2025.

Whether staff can speak Welsh is a self-reported variable, with the vast majority of staff not reporting this information, so the true numbers of Welsh speakers is likely to be higher.

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) keeps its performance targets under regular review to ensure they remain appropriate and aligned with demand and operational capacity. The performance metrics focus on the registration of new Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs) and the discharge of statutory responsibilities. OPG already operates published targets for the registration of LPAs, with performance reported annually.

In 2024–25, the average processing times for LPAs and Enduring Powers of Attorney reduced significantly to 49 working days, down from 76 working days in 2023–24. This improvement reflects sustained efforts to clear a backlog of applications. Amendments to, and cancellations of, existing LPAs vary in complexity, and their timeliness is monitored through internal performance management arrangements. The organisation does not collect or publish detailed operational data on the processing times for deeds of revocation. While OPG aims to process such requests within 15 working days of receipt, it does not record individual clearance times for these cases. As a result, the shortest, median and longest processing times for cancellation requests in 2025 cannot be provided.

Existing guidance on GOV.UK explains the process for revoking an LPA, including the requirement for a donor to complete a Deed of Revocation in the prescribed form. OPG keeps its published guidance under regular review. While OPG does not currently publish specific guidance on the precise legal point at which an LPA is considered revoked, the legal position is set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), an LPA is revoked once the donor has executed a valid Deed of Revocation and notified OPG. OPG will continue to review its guidance to ensure it remains clear, accessible and aligned with statutory requirements.

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) keeps its performance targets under regular review to ensure they remain appropriate and aligned with demand and operational capacity. The performance metrics focus on the registration of new Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs) and the discharge of statutory responsibilities. OPG already operates published targets for the registration of LPAs, with performance reported annually.

In 2024–25, the average processing times for LPAs and Enduring Powers of Attorney reduced significantly to 49 working days, down from 76 working days in 2023–24. This improvement reflects sustained efforts to clear a backlog of applications. Amendments to, and cancellations of, existing LPAs vary in complexity, and their timeliness is monitored through internal performance management arrangements. The organisation does not collect or publish detailed operational data on the processing times for deeds of revocation. While OPG aims to process such requests within 15 working days of receipt, it does not record individual clearance times for these cases. As a result, the shortest, median and longest processing times for cancellation requests in 2025 cannot be provided.

Existing guidance on GOV.UK explains the process for revoking an LPA, including the requirement for a donor to complete a Deed of Revocation in the prescribed form. OPG keeps its published guidance under regular review. While OPG does not currently publish specific guidance on the precise legal point at which an LPA is considered revoked, the legal position is set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), an LPA is revoked once the donor has executed a valid Deed of Revocation and notified OPG. OPG will continue to review its guidance to ensure it remains clear, accessible and aligned with statutory requirements.

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) keeps its performance targets under regular review to ensure they remain appropriate and aligned with demand and operational capacity. The performance metrics focus on the registration of new Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs) and the discharge of statutory responsibilities. OPG already operates published targets for the registration of LPAs, with performance reported annually.

In 2024–25, the average processing times for LPAs and Enduring Powers of Attorney reduced significantly to 49 working days, down from 76 working days in 2023–24. This improvement reflects sustained efforts to clear a backlog of applications. Amendments to, and cancellations of, existing LPAs vary in complexity, and their timeliness is monitored through internal performance management arrangements. The organisation does not collect or publish detailed operational data on the processing times for deeds of revocation. While OPG aims to process such requests within 15 working days of receipt, it does not record individual clearance times for these cases. As a result, the shortest, median and longest processing times for cancellation requests in 2025 cannot be provided.

Existing guidance on GOV.UK explains the process for revoking an LPA, including the requirement for a donor to complete a Deed of Revocation in the prescribed form. OPG keeps its published guidance under regular review. While OPG does not currently publish specific guidance on the precise legal point at which an LPA is considered revoked, the legal position is set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), an LPA is revoked once the donor has executed a valid Deed of Revocation and notified OPG. OPG will continue to review its guidance to ensure it remains clear, accessible and aligned with statutory requirements.

This Government recognises the impact that family court proceedings have on children and adult survivors of domestic abuse, which is why we are prioritising strong safeguarding and specialist support for those navigating the system.

The Government acknowledges that repeated court hearings can retraumatise adult and child victims of domestic abuse. The Pathfinder pilot was launched in Dorset and North Wales in February 2022 and has now been expanded to 10 court areas in England and Wales, which accounts for around a quarter of private law proceedings in England and Wales. Further expansion will be announced in due course. The Pathfinder model improves coordination between the family court and agencies, including local authorities and the police, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse. This approach reduces the number of cases returning to court, protecting children and families from further trauma.

By introducing a Child Impact Report early in the process and having a more investigative process, judges are enabled to assess risks thoroughly and make more sustainable orders. This child-centred, trauma-informed approach improves early risk identification, strengthens multiagency collaboration, and helps ensure that children’s voices are heard and that the psychological impact of contact arrangements is fully considered by the court.

This Government has taken steps to ensure that family court procedures more effectively identify and prevent patterns of coercive or controlling behaviour. Practice Direction 12 J has been amended to require courts to assess patterns of behaviour rather than isolated incidents, to modernise terminology, and to strengthen safeguards for vulnerable parties. Alongside this, section 91(14) orders, also referred to as “barring orders”, may be issued by the family court where further applications would put a child or adult, such as a victim of domestic abuse, at risk of harm, particularly where proceedings could be a form of continuing domestic abuse. Courts can issue a s91(14) order of their own motion or on application. Where such an order is in place, the court is required to consider whether circumstances have materially changed before granting permission to make a new application.

The Government welcomes the publication of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report “Everyday Business: Addressing domestic abuse and continuing harm through a family court review and reporting mechanism.” We are carefully considering the recommendations made in the report and will publish a full response shortly.

This Government recognises the impact that family court proceedings have on children and adult survivors of domestic abuse, which is why we are prioritising strong safeguarding and specialist support for those navigating the system.

The Government acknowledges that repeated court hearings can retraumatise adult and child victims of domestic abuse. The Pathfinder pilot was launched in Dorset and North Wales in February 2022 and has now been expanded to 10 court areas in England and Wales, which accounts for around a quarter of private law proceedings in England and Wales. Further expansion will be announced in due course. The Pathfinder model improves coordination between the family court and agencies, including local authorities and the police, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse. This approach reduces the number of cases returning to court, protecting children and families from further trauma.

By introducing a Child Impact Report early in the process and having a more investigative process, judges are enabled to assess risks thoroughly and make more sustainable orders. This child-centred, trauma-informed approach improves early risk identification, strengthens multiagency collaboration, and helps ensure that children’s voices are heard and that the psychological impact of contact arrangements is fully considered by the court.

This Government has taken steps to ensure that family court procedures more effectively identify and prevent patterns of coercive or controlling behaviour. Practice Direction 12 J has been amended to require courts to assess patterns of behaviour rather than isolated incidents, to modernise terminology, and to strengthen safeguards for vulnerable parties. Alongside this, section 91(14) orders, also referred to as “barring orders”, may be issued by the family court where further applications would put a child or adult, such as a victim of domestic abuse, at risk of harm, particularly where proceedings could be a form of continuing domestic abuse. Courts can issue a s91(14) order of their own motion or on application. Where such an order is in place, the court is required to consider whether circumstances have materially changed before granting permission to make a new application.

The Government welcomes the publication of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report “Everyday Business: Addressing domestic abuse and continuing harm through a family court review and reporting mechanism.” We are carefully considering the recommendations made in the report and will publish a full response shortly.

This Government recognises the impact that family court proceedings have on children and adult survivors of domestic abuse, which is why we are prioritising strong safeguarding and specialist support for those navigating the system.

The Government acknowledges that repeated court hearings can retraumatise adult and child victims of domestic abuse. The Pathfinder pilot was launched in Dorset and North Wales in February 2022 and has now been expanded to 10 court areas in England and Wales, which accounts for around a quarter of private law proceedings in England and Wales. Further expansion will be announced in due course. The Pathfinder model improves coordination between the family court and agencies, including local authorities and the police, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse. This approach reduces the number of cases returning to court, protecting children and families from further trauma.

By introducing a Child Impact Report early in the process and having a more investigative process, judges are enabled to assess risks thoroughly and make more sustainable orders. This child-centred, trauma-informed approach improves early risk identification, strengthens multiagency collaboration, and helps ensure that children’s voices are heard and that the psychological impact of contact arrangements is fully considered by the court.

This Government has taken steps to ensure that family court procedures more effectively identify and prevent patterns of coercive or controlling behaviour. Practice Direction 12 J has been amended to require courts to assess patterns of behaviour rather than isolated incidents, to modernise terminology, and to strengthen safeguards for vulnerable parties. Alongside this, section 91(14) orders, also referred to as “barring orders”, may be issued by the family court where further applications would put a child or adult, such as a victim of domestic abuse, at risk of harm, particularly where proceedings could be a form of continuing domestic abuse. Courts can issue a s91(14) order of their own motion or on application. Where such an order is in place, the court is required to consider whether circumstances have materially changed before granting permission to make a new application.

The Government welcomes the publication of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report “Everyday Business: Addressing domestic abuse and continuing harm through a family court review and reporting mechanism.” We are carefully considering the recommendations made in the report and will publish a full response shortly.

This Government recognises the impact that family court proceedings have on children and adult survivors of domestic abuse, which is why we are prioritising strong safeguarding and specialist support for those navigating the system.

The Government acknowledges that repeated court hearings can retraumatise adult and child victims of domestic abuse. The Pathfinder pilot was launched in Dorset and North Wales in February 2022 and has now been expanded to 10 court areas in England and Wales, which accounts for around a quarter of private law proceedings in England and Wales. Further expansion will be announced in due course. The Pathfinder model improves coordination between the family court and agencies, including local authorities and the police, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse. This approach reduces the number of cases returning to court, protecting children and families from further trauma.

By introducing a Child Impact Report early in the process and having a more investigative process, judges are enabled to assess risks thoroughly and make more sustainable orders. This child-centred, trauma-informed approach improves early risk identification, strengthens multiagency collaboration, and helps ensure that children’s voices are heard and that the psychological impact of contact arrangements is fully considered by the court.

This Government has taken steps to ensure that family court procedures more effectively identify and prevent patterns of coercive or controlling behaviour. Practice Direction 12 J has been amended to require courts to assess patterns of behaviour rather than isolated incidents, to modernise terminology, and to strengthen safeguards for vulnerable parties. Alongside this, section 91(14) orders, also referred to as “barring orders”, may be issued by the family court where further applications would put a child or adult, such as a victim of domestic abuse, at risk of harm, particularly where proceedings could be a form of continuing domestic abuse. Courts can issue a s91(14) order of their own motion or on application. Where such an order is in place, the court is required to consider whether circumstances have materially changed before granting permission to make a new application.

The Government welcomes the publication of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report “Everyday Business: Addressing domestic abuse and continuing harm through a family court review and reporting mechanism.” We are carefully considering the recommendations made in the report and will publish a full response shortly.

This Government recognises the significant impact of domestic abuse on children and adult victims involved in family court proceedings, which is why we are committed to reforms that improve multi-agency working and provide better support.

Central to these reforms is the expansion of the Pathfinder model which seeks to improve outcomes for children and families involved in private family law proceedings, including those who have experienced domestic abuse. The voice of the child is amplified through a Child Impact Report which assesses the child’s experiences and needs, ensuring these are heard and communicated to the court.

Under the Pathfinder model, victims of domestic abuse are also offered specialist support from an Independent Domestic Violence Adviser. The model currently operates in 10 court areas, backed by £13 million investment in the current financial year.

This Government recognises the significant impact of domestic abuse on children and adult victims involved in family court proceedings, which is why we are committed to reforms that improve multi-agency working and provide better support.

Central to these reforms is the expansion of the Pathfinder model which seeks to improve outcomes for children and families involved in private family law proceedings, including those who have experienced domestic abuse. The voice of the child is amplified through a Child Impact Report which assesses the child’s experiences and needs, ensuring these are heard and communicated to the court.

Under the Pathfinder model, victims of domestic abuse are also offered specialist support from an Independent Domestic Violence Adviser. The model currently operates in 10 court areas, backed by £13 million investment in the current financial year.

This Government recognises the significant impact of domestic abuse on children and adult victims involved in family court proceedings, which is why we are committed to reforms that improve multi-agency working and provide better support.

Central to these reforms is the expansion of the Pathfinder model which seeks to improve outcomes for children and families involved in private family law proceedings, including those who have experienced domestic abuse. The voice of the child is amplified through a Child Impact Report which assesses the child’s experiences and needs, ensuring these are heard and communicated to the court.

Under the Pathfinder model, victims of domestic abuse are also offered specialist support from an Independent Domestic Violence Adviser. The model currently operates in 10 court areas, backed by £13 million investment in the current financial year.

This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.

Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.

There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.

Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.

Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.

The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.

This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.

Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.

There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.

Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.

Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.

The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.

This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.

Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.

There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.

Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.

Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.

The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.

The Ministry of Justice publishes figures for Crown Court timeliness on a quarterly basis in the ‘End-to-end timeliness tool (Crown Court)’. This includes time taken from charge to completion for rape cases: Criminal court statistics quarterly: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK.

Offence group can be filtered for ‘02: Sexual offences – all rape’. Both the mean and median time from charge to completion can be found in the table, dating back to 2016.

The Ministry of Justice publishes figures for the volume of ineffective trials and reasons on a quarterly basis in the ‘Trial effectiveness at the criminal courts’ tool: Criminal court statistics quarterly: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK. An ineffective trial does not take place on the scheduled trial start date and requires a subsequent rescheduled listing.

A vacated trial is one that is removed from the trial list prior to the date of trial. These trials may or may not be listed for a future date. The trial effectiveness tool also includes data on the volume of vacated trials, but the Ministry of Justice does not currently publish reasons for vacation.

The offence group field can be filtered for ‘02: Sexual offences – All Rape’ and there is also a filter for the reason for ineffective trials.

Violence against women and girls constitutes a number of offences. The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data on convictions for a number of offences including offences related to violence against women and girls in the Outcomes by Offence data tool. This can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics.

The Government cannot and does not seek to influence convictions or judicial outcomes, which are rightly matters for the independent judiciary. However, as part of our mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, we recognise it is vital for victims to feel able to come forward and obtain the justice they deserve.

In December, we published our ‘Freedom from violence and abuse: a cross-government strategy’, which sets out the actions we are taking to achieve our VAWG mission. To support victims to come forward and feel able to stay engaged throughout the justice process, our strategy sets out a comprehensive package of measures to strengthen support at every stage of the criminal justice system. This includes court measures to protect victims from intrusive cross-examination, stronger perpetrator management through a national rollout of Domestic Abuse Protection Orders, and the largest-ever investment of £550 million into victim support services over the next three years.

A Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) allows a person (the donor) to choose people they trust (the attorney) to make decisions for them should they lose the mental capacity to make their own decisions. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides the legal framework for LPAs, one for Property and Financial Affairs and one for Health and Welfare, reflecting their different scopes and use.

While donors often appoint the same attorney for both, the instruments remain separate to avoid confusion arising from the differing points to which each LPA can be used and ensures donors can make clear, informed decisions about each type of power. The Health and Welfare LPA may also contain sensitive health information which is not relevant for Property and Financial Affairs decisions. There were consultations in 2012 and 2013 which included proposals for a combined form but, in line with the responses, the Department did not proceed with this idea.

Jury service is an important civic duty. Whilst many people find it worthwhile, we recognise that some trials can be challenging.

The “Enhanced Support for Jurors” pilot concluded in March 2025 and is currently being evaluated. The results will help inform longer-term support for jurors, including in cases involving serious violence or sexual offending.

If a juror is left distressed by any aspect of their service, they are encouraged to seek specialist support through their GP or the NHS 111 helpline, which includes a dedicated mental health option.

Jury service is an important civic duty. Whilst many people find it worthwhile, we recognise that some trials can be challenging.

The “Enhanced Support for Jurors” pilot concluded in March 2025 and is currently being evaluated. The results will help inform longer-term support for jurors, including in cases involving serious violence or sexual offending.

If a juror is left distressed by any aspect of their service, they are encouraged to seek specialist support through their GP or the NHS 111 helpline, which includes a dedicated mental health option.

The Sentencing Act 2026 received Royal Assent on 22 January 2026. This measure commences automatically 2 months after Royal Assent, on 22 March 2026.

There is no specific route to claim compensation related to any work or community service undertaken as part of a sentence, which is subsequently overturned.

For individuals who have suffered a miscarriage of justice, section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act provides for the Secretary of State to pay compensation to an individual, subject to meeting the statutory test. This is administrated by the Miscarriages of Justice Application Service. If an individual is deemed eligible, the level of award is determined by an Independent Assessor, and in October 2025, we increased the maximum cap for compensation by 30%.

There is no specific route to claim compensation related to any work or community service undertaken as part of a sentence, which is subsequently overturned.

For individuals who have suffered a miscarriage of justice, section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act provides for the Secretary of State to pay compensation to an individual, subject to meeting the statutory test. This is administrated by the Miscarriages of Justice Application Service. If an individual is deemed eligible, the level of award is determined by an Independent Assessor, and in October 2025, we increased the maximum cap for compensation by 30%.

Alcohol monitoring on licence was introduced in Wales in 2021 and England in 2022 and enables probation to include an additional licence condition banning or restricting the consumption of alcohol, where a criminogenic need related to alcohol misuse is identified as an increase to risk. The alcohol monitoring on licence: process and interim impact evaluation was published on 30 October 2025: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/alcohol-monitoring-on-licence-process-and-interim-impact-evaluation. A further impact evaluation exploring reoffending will be published in due course which will measure longer-term outcomes than the existing published evaluation. The sample size is not confirmed but we expect it to be broadly similar.

The process and interim impact evaluation of Alcohol Monitoring on Licence scheme was based on a sample of the overall tagged population. The process evaluation reported some instances where tag wearers experienced pain or discomfort and had the tag changed or removed. These issues did not indicate widespread concerns about the reliability of alcohol tag readings.

Alcohol monitoring on licence was introduced in Wales in 2021 and England in 2022 and enables probation to include an additional licence condition banning or restricting the consumption of alcohol, where a criminogenic need related to alcohol misuse is identified as an increase to risk. The alcohol monitoring on licence: process and interim impact evaluation was published on 30 October 2025: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/alcohol-monitoring-on-licence-process-and-interim-impact-evaluation. A further impact evaluation exploring reoffending will be published in due course which will measure longer-term outcomes than the existing published evaluation. The sample size is not confirmed but we expect it to be broadly similar.

The process and interim impact evaluation of Alcohol Monitoring on Licence scheme was based on a sample of the overall tagged population. The process evaluation reported some instances where tag wearers experienced pain or discomfort and had the tag changed or removed. These issues did not indicate widespread concerns about the reliability of alcohol tag readings.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on the number of offenders who were convicted of a specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.

This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on the number of offenders who were convicted of a specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.

This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on the number of offenders who were convicted of a specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.

This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on the number of offenders who were convicted of a specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.

This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on the number of offenders who were convicted of a specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.

This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.